Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

epj.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#71

Post by DonHopkins »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #55
craigc wrote: post #27

I am well aware that most people on Hacker News hate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies so a lot of these types of studies and articles that are negative end up making their way to the top. It is strange that this study was from 2017-2018 and yet they only considered data from 2009-2013. Would be nice if there was an explanation as to why. One thing I wanted to point out is this seems to be presented to shine a negative li…

> I am well aware that most people on Hacker News hate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies It's not hatred of Bitcoin to think that it's more worthwhile as a white paper than as an investment vehicle.

It's not Bitcoin itself, it's just that most people on Hacker News hate fraudsters and charlatans perpetrating get-rich-quick pyramid schemes.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#72

Post by DonHopkins »

rspeer wrote: post #58
craigc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not really understand it. Posts about other technologies on here lead to civilized, intelligent conversations, but for whatever reason, any post about crypto or Bitcoin just leads to attacks and arguments. The reason I find it more inexplicable is that when you think about just the idea of peer to peer programmable finances/money without requiring any trusted intermediary that is a huge idea. In my opinion, it i…

Why is it revolutionary? Who really cares that much about not requiring a trusted intermediary, besides anarchists? Our civilized world is built on trust. It was a Bitcoin advocate who said "nothing is cheaper than proof of work", given the precondition that you don't trust anyone. Curiously, they saw that as an argument in favor of proof of work. Bitcoin detractors see that as an argument in favor of trusting someon…

In the cast of Bitcoin, I think they should call it "proof of waste".

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#73

Post by DonHopkins »

craigc wrote: post #42
dnomad wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might read the Bitcoin paper written by the inventor of Bitcoin. There is absolutely no doubt that Bitcoin was originally and has always been marketed as a currency. I can see why you might want to deny this but, please, it's insulting to try and rewrite history when the facts are widely known.

I have read it multiple times, in fact. I am not denying that it was originally intended as a peer to peer currency, but saying it was marketed as that when the creator was publishing an academic paper of sorts and releasing it for free into the world is a bit of a stretch. Marketing implies that there is a customer you are trying to sell a product or service to. He or she did not care about getting rich since the or…

Let me point out that you're accusing other people of glossing over what you wrote, when they're actually saying they've already heard all the stock fallacious arguments and tired marketing slogans you're regurgitating, while you're glossing over what they are writing.

So let me repeat an important point that you just now glossed over yourself: Your attempt at rewriting well known history is insulting. Hacker News is not the proper audience for your Bitcoin marketing, not the proper venue to insult people's intelligence. Please stop insulting us by acting like it is.

YOU by your own free will and greed and behavior are an integral part of the decentralized marketing team whose existence you deny, and it's insulting that you keep repeating the same things while glossing over what other people keep telling you.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#74

Post by pilmihilmipilmi »

craigc wrote: post #45
rboyd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it was just idiots that were marketing "let me show you how to get rich with bitcoin" courses, etc. I always wonder how much HN hates crypto just because it's important to have a good story for sleeping on crypto.

I do not really understand it. Posts about other technologies on here lead to civilized, intelligent conversations, but for whatever reason, any post about crypto or Bitcoin just leads to attacks and arguments. The reason I find it more inexplicable is that when you think about just the idea of peer to peer programmable finances/money without requiring any trusted intermediary that is a huge idea. In my opinion, it i…

It would be revolutionary to get rid of all anonymity. I think the term revolutionary applies to the cyber realm only.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#75

Post by hapnin »

qplex wrote: post #67
hapnin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basing it on eight years of experience in Bitcoin. "Bitcoin for coffee" and the like is a waste of the tech, imo. Buying network services such as you described is a better use as intercountry payments with debit cards isn't always feasible. Bitcoin's use is better as a transnational currency when traditional payment channels are cumbersome. To be frank, Bitcoin still has some work to do in the payment channel dep…

>Saving is always a good idea. Not really. Bitcoin has lost over -50% of its value in the last 6 months.

Bitcoin has more than doubled in price in the past year.

On an even longer timeline, we're all dead.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#76

Post by CryptoPunk »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #14
atomical wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I think of political control and Bitcoin I think of people who have the power to build a consensus for a hard fork. It wouldn't really make sense for someone controlling 51% of the network to hack the network. Then all their bitcoins would be useless because everyone else would abandon the network.

They could do short, targeted 51% attacks without doing much harm to the value of Bitcoin. In 2013 Ghash.io a mining pool had an employee who carried out mining based doublespends against a gambling site [0]. Very few people abandoned the network because very few people were impacted by this attack. [0]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=321630.msg3445371#ms...

The Ghash double spend was a pretty big deal, and instigated a big campaign by miners to switch away from the Ghash pool. So it was costly for the pool, and it was probably not happy about its employee executing it.

Any player that directly owns 51% of the hash power, rather than just pooling, would similarly be economically incentivized to avoid such double spends, as they provide very little payout, while undermining confidence in the protoocl.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#77

Post by dane-pgp »

jib wrote: post #53
21 wrote: post #10

When bitcoin appeared, everybody was saying that "only retarded people would `invest` in such an obvious scam. you would be better to blow your money in Vegas, at least you'll get a free drink". Now the same people say "it's not fair that some got to buy it at such cheap valuations".

No we are still saying the same. Lots of people made money on pyramid schemes, that doesn’t make them a good investment. The longer a pyramid scheme runs, the dumber it is to invest in it. If you truthfully believe bitcoin will develop into a stable alternative to state run currencies, great, I wish you good luck. I don’t. To me it is like religion - they can’t all be right and they are mutually exclusive. I don’t tr…

The notes and coins for the euro were first issued in 2002, and the first bitcoin was mined in 2009. What makes one a pyramid scheme and the other not?

The answer surely can't be "every currency issued by a government is stable forever and every crypto-currency will collapse before 5 years".

What I'm saying is, there are a lot of currencies out there, and some are more stable and have a better track record than others. You may not trust yourself to pick a winner among the losers, but I suspect you do use at least one currency from time to time, so you have picked one by default.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#78

Post by darawk »

garmaine wrote: post #70
geomark wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a small group in control, so still an oligarchy. But the fact that there is a constant rotation of oligarchs makes it a little different, like maybe you could be the next oligarch.

Churn at the top doesn't mean there's upward mobility.

Yes, it literally does.

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#79

Post by robertAngst »

DonHopkins wrote: post #71
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am well aware that most people on Hacker News hate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies It's not hatred of Bitcoin to think that it's more worthwhile as a white paper than as an investment vehicle.

It's not Bitcoin itself, it's just that most people on Hacker News hate fraudsters and charlatans perpetrating get-rich-quick pyramid schemes.

You arent a programmer right?

Or did you not know there are only 21,000,000 BTC ever ever ever? Have you heard of fractional reserve banking?

Re: Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?

#80

Post by replies_to_all »

DonHopkins wrote: post #71
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am well aware that most people on Hacker News hate Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies It's not hatred of Bitcoin to think that it's more worthwhile as a white paper than as an investment vehicle.

It's not Bitcoin itself, it's just that most people on Hacker News hate fraudsters and charlatans perpetrating get-rich-quick pyramid schemes.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN